Philosophy Now Forum

ken wrote:
This is some thing you do quite often. You do not accept some thing because you have
already accepted some thing as being the truth so you are NOT open to any thing else

I cannot be open to something if I already accept something else that is incompatible with it. One cannot just accept anything. Openness is relative not absolute. You want me to accept something you say it must either be empirically true or logically true. And so anything you say
that I do not accept is neither of these. Such as for example your claim that there is no mind

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2017 1:49 am

ken wrote:
time is just a human made up word and the label placed on the passing of events and / or the distance between events

That is true but all words are of human origin and so saying that time is just a word is true of every other word as well

How often do you actually read and understand the words I write?

I NEVER said time is just a word.

I said, "'time' is just a human made up word and ..." then went on to explain what the word is in relation to.

Further to this, how many times do I have to ask that if you are going to quote Me then could you please do it accurately. I have already offered advice to you in how to do it accurately. Now since you do not do it accurately and you do not ask for assistance in how to do it accurately I am going to ask you, Why will you not do it accurately? Obviously you are doing this on purpose for some reason, so WHY do you do it this way? What is the reason you will not quote Me correctly?

This reason may partly explain WHY you are NOT seeing and understanding things the way as I write and mean them.

Do you use some kind of keypad that is not of popular kind? Are you getting these writings through some kind of speech instead of just reading the written words? Is it not easier to just click on the quote button so that what I write is the exact same? What is it?

Of course ALL words are of human origin so there is no need to say and explain that this is true for every other word also. I do not see many others disagreeing with this at all and I did not think it would be some thing that would be necessary to stipulate. BUT that is NOT what I was talking about. I was saying that the word 'time' is placed on the passing of events and/or the distance between events. 'Time', itself, is NOT an actual thing occurring. Of course different events occur and take place. And of course there is a length difference between these events and a passing of the events. We can see and experience these differing events occurring. But where is time, itself? How do we see and experience time?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2017 2:30 am

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
Also if time does not exist then why is there motion and entropy

Because events happen So change occurs naturally

An event is a thing happening in time such as motion or entropy

What is time? And how do you propose things, such as motion or entropy, happen in time?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2017 2:30 amExplain then how time cannot exist for things happening in time

The passing of events happening and occurring exists.

You observe and see that time exists and things happen within that. I do not observe and see that. So, I am unable to you how what you observe and see is not true. I can only learn how to express what I observe and see better. I have already explained that I do not observe and see 'time' as some actual thing. If for example, you are 20 light years away from earth at this given moment, what is the time and what is time? Where are you in relation to time? And, how are things happening in time?

I have explained that events occur and there is a passing of events. This is easily seen, experienced, explained, and understood because they are actual things. People find 'time' very hard to see, experience, explain and understood maybe because time is not actual thing as such.

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2017 2:33 am

thedoc wrote:
An alternate explanation is that there are parallel universes and the photons in one universe are
interfering and reacting with the photons in the adjacent universe producing the pattern seen on the screen

In brane theory photons cannot travel between universes where the brane resides on a closed string so other ones
cannot be observed [ assuming that they actually exist ] The only thing that could travel between them is gravity

Is this a known fact, or just an assumption?

ken wrote:
I do NOT get frustrated at human beings not accepting things in of itself. I feel frustrated at what I expressed previously
That is what I am saying is instantly dismissed BEFORE I have even had a chance to explain it yet. There is a big difference

You cannot control how others react to your words but unless you actually want to feel frustrated why do you let it happen
Do you not think that being as clear and precise as possible is more important than whether or not any one agrees with you

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:50 am

ken wrote: ↑Mon Jul 10, 2017 9:40 am
I know you do not agree, but I will say it again, who/what is observing what is observed is already known, and, can be explained.

Yes, it's known by no one. And yes it can be explained as imagined.

By 'no one' do you mean no physical thing or do you mean no actual thing at all?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2017 6:50 amThis ''no one'' here imagines it....as follows...

Life is an effect of a causeless cause. A continuous singular movement, appearing as phenomena upon a silent non-moving timeless backdrop of awareness. Any boundaries between this and that have to be illusory and not real.The first cause or the first effect can never be determined.
A cause is a compressed effect and an effect is an expressed cause.
Therefore, there is no room to make an approach, any approach is also it approaching itself as imagined.

.

This is absolute understanding. The end of illusory knowledge.



.

How do 'you' KNOW that that is how "no one" imagines things?

By 'imagine' do you mean that what is being imagined does not actually exist?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2017 12:36 pm

ken wrote:
If a person is going to say that there are more than one Universe then the once generally accepted definition of Universe needs
to be changed. I am just requesting from the people who say there are more than one Universe what new name and label are
they going to use for the old definition AND what is the going to be the new definition for each of the alleged many universes

I have already said that there is only one Universe the definition of which is ALL THERE IS but there may be within it many
other smaller universes.

How can a smaller one of some thing be in a larger one of the exact same thing?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 11, 2017 12:36 pmBut if that is too confusing [ and it can be ] one can use the term Multiverse instead of Universe

How is 'multiverse' defined in relation to how 'Universe' is defined? And, does a capital M and/or U make a difference from if there was a small m and/or u? If so, what is the difference/s?

ken wrote:
I unlike you do not just not accept things because I believe or accept the opposite is true. If and when you show some signs
of being somewhat open then I will provide clarifying answers. But I am not sure why this should all be about you personally

I do not do belief as I have already said. One reason why you should provide clarifying answers is because others might be reading your posts
and may want you to be as clear and precise as possible. But you should be doing that any way do you not think. And this is not all about me

ken wrote:
As I have explained previously to provide clarifying answers and explain things much easier knowing what is sought for clarification and explanation makes this process much easier. Otherwise I have to guess what each and every reader is thinking and guess where they are coming from. What you would want Me to provide clarifying answers to exactly I would have to assume

You do not have to guess or assume what anyone is thinking you just have to be as clear and
precise as you can be. And if anyone then wants to ask you any clarifying questions they will

ken wrote:
If you know how to and thus can easily avoid not letting the frustration emotion be experienced then why do you just not let any of the negative
or not wanted emotions be experienced at all ? Sounds rather non human and machine like if you could so easily not experience emotions as you
are trying to suggest here. Why do you not just experience only all the emotions that you want to experience

I was referring to one emotion in a specific context so I was not speaking in a general sense. It was not experiencing frustration on line at the reactions of others to my words. It just does not happen. For me getting angry at signifiers on a computer screen is a waste of mental energy
and therefore not worth the effort. I usually try to keep emotions at neutral or non existent depending on whether they are good or bad ones

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

ken wrote:
I DO have full and real control over My life

I can NOT stop getting frustration feelings at times

Full control over your life would stop you from experiencing any frustration at all

Explain to all of us here how a human being can stop from experiencing an emotion

When you say that you have full and real control over your life does that not mean emotional control
But if it does not mean emotional control you cannot have full and real control over your life can you

ken wrote:
Was the clue that I supposedly become frustrated only that you purposely instantly dismiss what I write in the hope to cause an emotional reaction

How you respond to my words is not something that I have any control over. So why then would I want to cause an emotional reaction
The only emotions I have any control over are my own. How you control yours is a matter for you and you only. Nothing to do with me

ken wrote:
if you can prevent frustration feelings from arising ever again then I am sure there would be a lot of others who would love to obtain this
secret also. But if you are just saying that you will no longer feel frustration again because you came to realize that you have no influence
whatsoever over how any one else thinks then I would suggest you rethink that through a bit more

Again I was specifically referring to frustration online not in general. It is difficult to have any influence on anyone if you are basically a recluse
I am only referring to meatspace not cyberspace. Although I do not want to have any influence here either. That is not my reason for being here

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
In brane theory photons cannot travel between universes where the brane resides on a closed string so other ones
cannot be observed [ assuming that they actually exist ] The only thing that could travel between them is gravity

Is this a known fact or just an assumption

Purely theoretical and so just an assumption

ken wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
I have already said that there is only one Universe the definition of which
is ALL THERE IS but there may be within it many other smaller universes

How can a smaller one of some thing be in a larger one of the exact same

They are not the exact same as every small one is individually unique